USAF: Long-Range Strike Options Considered

Originally posted by xmotex
To all those commenting that the B-1 is an "aging airframe" - ever hear of the B-52? There is no particular reason that airframe age should preclude
the B-1R's development. And leveraging an existing airframe means huge devlopment and production cost savings. The rebuild will allow the USAF to
address the well-understood shortcomings of the existing B-1, making it a far more effective aircraft.

I know the AF has had reports that state that they will have the B-52 until somewhere around 2037...But It wont be in service that long, I highly
doubt there will be any operational military B-52's past 2030.
I dont think the B-52 really has a role anymore these days.

and Zion, I think the FALCON is completely different, and the AF is building up to it, there doing phases to gets the technology more mature, and that
craft would not be participating in the FB arena.

I'm surprised they didnt mention the FALCON project, are they going to cancel that, or do they want to use existing technology as much as possible
(kind of like NASA does with its Moon project)?

FALCON is still very much alive but most concepts have it as a small hypersonic delivery vehicle not a hypersonic bomb truck hauling tons of ordinance
halfway around the globe.

I'm relatively sure that as you eluded, existing technology is seen as being the quickest to field - therefore don't count on hypersonic bombers
just yet.

Even if the FALCON did come to fruition as a deployable weapon system, I would not anticipate it being ready to go into full production by 2015 which
is when the winning "interim strike/regional strike/global strike" concepts are slated to go into production. (FALCON is not supposed to be
viable until 2025 anyway I think)

I'm inclined to think that the FALCON project will end up being a technology demonstrator as opposed to seeing fruition as a weapon delivery system
on it's own... but that is just my opinion.

It seemed to be pretty effective in Afghanistan, if you recall.
A penetration bomber it's not, but it can deliver lots of ordnance a very long way with great acccuracy. I wouldn't be suprised to see them in use
beyond 2037 actually. There is nothing inherently wrong with the airframe, old or not, it still does its job very well.

It seemed to be pretty effective in Afghanistan, if you recall.
A penetration bomber it's not, but it can deliver lots of ordnance a very long way with great acccuracy. I wouldn't be suprised to see them in use
beyond 2037 actually. There is nothing inherently wrong with the airframe, old or not, it still does its job very well.

Yes it was...but the point I was trying to make is that whatever it did...could have being done by something else.
And its ordinance Accuracy has nothing to do with the aircraft, its the GPS guided bombs. Theres no need for that old slow large payload bomber. A
B-1 could handle its tasks, or even a F-15E.

If there's no need for it why are they keeping them in service?
Nostalgia?

And yes, GPS guided munitions make the aircraft irrelevant to accuracy.
Which is IMHO a point for the B-52, not against it.

My point is that while the B-52 may not be the most exciting gee-whiz aircraft, it still performs it's assigned mission very effectively, thus there
is no reason to reitre/replace it. The aiframes themselves seem like they'll have no problem lasting until their planned retirement date (or longer).

The problem I have with using a B-1 is that you are essentially buying a bunch of new aircraft for the AF that don't give the AF new capabilities.

Like I said before, if the AF is serious about getting a new bomber, they need to go all out and not half arse it. There is really no reason to buy a
bunch of modified B-1's in my opinion. It just doesn't make sense.

The USAF has those same capabilities right now. They already have the B-1. If they need a new strike aircraft, but want to base it off of an existing
platform, they should go with the F/b-22 or F/B-23. At least that way they are getting stealth with their money, which would increase the AFs
capabilities and further build up the all stealth fleet that the AF seems to want.

Originally posted by Char2c35t
The x=47 and the Lockheed Long Range Strike UCAV Concept look to be on the right track the boing x-45d seems to be the weakest.

4. x-45d- seem to be better as a recon plane
1. x-47 - a mini uav b2

- I'm a little confused about what you said.
You realize that the only major difference between the to is that the X-47B was made for the carriers, and its wings can fold.
I dont see why you think the X-45D would be a good recon plane, thats what the Global Hawk is for, it fits the bill with its long wings.

American Mad Man, Im very surprised to hear you say that you dont like the B-1. Besides being one of my top 3 favorite planes of all time, it is an
invaluable asset to the AF which even they are just beginning to realize.

To the people who say its an aging airframe, I highly disagree. If youve ever seen the inside of the airframe, you will notice it is in pristine
condition and very well manufactured. The reason for all the initial problems was because it was such a highly innovative aircraft and some
technologies hadnt been fully worked out upon completion.

Let me sum up the B-1's capabilities and maybe you'll see that it can do what others cannot.

This aircraft was developed as a low altitude, high speed attack bomber. Its goal was to penetrate BELOW radar, not by being invisible to it, but
pretty close. It has terrain following capabilites which essentially can place the aircraft at 50 feet off the ground at 900 mph for a dam near
invisible and silent approach to a target. It would skim the ground until its target approched and then would obliterate its objective and continue on
its way, all the time, never climbing to altitude.

This plane is also extremely agile for a bomber, essentially pulling moves like a fighter. It carries almost two times the payload as a b-52 and can
house 82 500 pound gps or laser guided bombs, among many many other types of munitions. This plane is very dangerous to the enemy.

There simply is not any other plane on earth that can compare with its capabilites. Already an astonding bomber, the upgrades would make this baby,
unreal, cruising at mach 2.2 and inhancing its electronic capabilities and upgrading stealth features would make it an even more impressive airframe.
Aging and obsolete, ha, I highy dont think so.

Last i heared the B-1 was designed for high level high speed attacks and they adapted the airframe etc for low level attacks. The swing wing has been
rendered more useless now because to be able to manuvere any where close to agile the wings are swept forward therefore slowing down the plane.
Dont get me wrong i love the plane and it does a ok job but its lacking enough generator power is a big problem. There is some hope for the B-1b
but the AF and Gov really screwed it up good.

The problem I have with using a B-1 is that you are essentially buying a bunch of new aircraft for the AF that don't give the AF new capabilities.

A low observable (not so much as a F-22 or B-2, but the B-1B is a somewhat stealthy aircraft already) Mach 2.2 aircraft that carries twice the
warload of a B-52 and can take out intercepting fighters from beyond visible range would be an entirely new capability. At far less cost than
developing a brand new aircraft.

I expect the inadequate generating capacity would be among the issues dealt with in the upgrade, if it's something that's proven to be a problem in
the past. It'd be necessary anyway to power the proposed radar.

This is really mixing up a variety of airframes.
Some of these are no more than stealthy cruise missiles.

First we have to pick:
1. Stealth strike
2. Deep strike
3. Loiter strike
4. Stand-off strike
5. Support strike
6. or a combination of the above

Then juggle cost versus advanced capabilities.

And pick an actual prefered combat scenario for it to accomplish.

Moderated with a ton of advancements in stealth, propulsion, and weaponry. Some of which are certainly not matured yet.

I have to think of the "80% of the ordnance was dropped by the B-1B's 20% of the sorties." Loiter strike/support strike is good. Versus the new
need for a stealthy fast deep strike requirement of the future.

In all probabilty, it might be a manned fast stealthy deep strike aircraft, perhaps accompanied by smaller un-manned airframes of the same
capabilities. It needs to carry a lot of electronics, light on ordnance.
And it will probably be none of these...

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Last i heared the B-1 was designed for high level high speed attacks and they adapted the airframe etc for low level attacks. The swing wing has
been rendered more useless now because to be able to manuvere any where close to agile the wings are swept forward therefore slowing down the plane.
Dont get me wrong i love the plane and it does a ok job but its lacking enough generator power is a big problem. There is some hope for the B-1b
but the AF and Gov really screwed it up good.

Not entirely true. The wings and fuselage are both acting as lift surfaces with the wings swept. The plane is able to manuver just fine with the
wings swept, I've seen them do an aileron roll while climbing with the wings at about 60 degrees. The reason the wings sweep forward is for low
speed flight. The slower you go, the less angle you have to have on the wings, thus creating more lift. You COULD land with them swept, one did at
Edwards with them at 55 degrees, but it REALLY wasn't pretty and caused a lot of damage. Melted brakes, blown tires, etc.

Originally posted by Murcielago
I know the AF has had reports that state that they will have the B-52 until somewhere around 2037...But It wont be in service that long, I highly
doubt there will be any operational military B-52's past 2030.
I dont think the B-52 really has a role anymore these days.

The newest role for the BUFF is after they upgrade it to the J model in the next few years. They're rewriting the USAF jamming doctrine, and are
converting them to stand off jamming platforms, with a bombing capability. They'll be paired up with MC-130 Combat Talons, with EF-18s and EA-6Bs
going in with the strike packages.

Originally posted by BigTrain
American Mad Man, Im very surprised to hear you say that you dont like the B-1. Besides being one of my top 3 favorite planes of all time, it is an
invaluable asset to the AF which even they are just beginning to realize.

To the people who say its an aging airframe, I highly disagree. If youve ever seen the inside of the airframe, you will notice it is in pristine
condition and very well manufactured. The reason for all the initial problems was because it was such a highly innovative aircraft and some
technologies hadnt been fully worked out upon completion.

Let me sum up the B-1's capabilities and maybe you'll see that it can do what others cannot.

This aircraft was developed as a low altitude, high speed attack bomber. Its goal was to penetrate BELOW radar, not by being invisible to it, but
pretty close. It has terrain following capabilites which essentially can place the aircraft at 50 feet off the ground at 900 mph for a dam near
invisible and silent approach to a target. It would skim the ground until its target approched and then would obliterate its objective and continue on
its way, all the time, never climbing to altitude.

This plane is also extremely agile for a bomber, essentially pulling moves like a fighter. It carries almost two times the payload as a b-52 and can
house 82 500 pound gps or laser guided bombs, among many many other types of munitions. This plane is very dangerous to the enemy.

There simply is not any other plane on earth that can compare with its capabilites. Already an astonding bomber, the upgrades would make this baby,
unreal, cruising at mach 2.2 and inhancing its electronic capabilities and upgrading stealth features would make it an even more impressive airframe.
Aging and obsolete, ha, I highy dont think so.

Train

It's not so much that I don't like the B-1, it's just that the USAF already has it, and I wouldn't want more money invested into it.

I do understand what it brings to the table, it's just that, IMHO, it won't have a place in the mid/long term future. The USAF is going to be
building a brand new bomber within the next 15-20 years that should be faster flying AND more stealty. So why buy a bunch of B-1's that are going to
be obsolete in a decade and a half anyway? IMO, it's better to spend that money elsewhere - like on a NEW bomber, or buiding MORE Raptors.

My opinion is that NO money should go towards this project. But IF they are going to spend it, it should be spent on the F/B-23.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.